New Fuel Economy Standards: Behind the Debate

Oct 1, 2009

Nearly every car commercial I see these days has a green theme. Automakers all tout their environmentally friendly message in TV ads proudly quoting fuel economy numbers for cars and trucks in their fleet. Some of that hype is certainly true. But some is just fantasy. One ad goes so far as to insinuate that the hybrid SUV you see on screen is so green that it sprouted like a plant out of the soil. Uh... yeah.

But I'm curious why automakers paint their ads so green, then oppose legislation that would raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards 40 percent—to 35 mpg—by 2020 for all cars and trucks. Under current standards, cars must average 27.5 mpg and trucks must achieve an average of 22.5 mpg. Those standards haven't moved much in the past 30 or so years. Isn't it time to raise those standards? If automakers were really serious about improving fuel economy, wouldn't it be a great marketing tool to actually exceed the CAFE standards by a wide, wide margin? If green is their message, wouldn't it make sense for them to embrace a higher fuel economy standard as CAFE legislation heads to the Senate next week? I think so.

But instead, the automotive lobby opposes raising the standard. Why?

Well, cost is probably the No. 1 reason. It takes money to build more fuel-efficient cars and trucks—lots of it. Want a diesel engine? That's a $3000-$5000 premium per vehicle. Tack on at least another $5000 for hybrid technology. Plus, new cars and trucks have to meet stringent safety standards, and that adds weight, which in turn lowers fuel economy. Try asking a consumer to forgo the leather interior and rear-seat DVD player in their minivan to save weight. I don't think so. Not that consumers want pokey cars and trucks anyway: No, Americans like vehicles with good passing power and low-end torque. So automakers struggle to meet all these needs, and it's still expensive. But every manufacturer has to meet the same stringent standards, so at least the playing field is essentially level.

Back in the 1970s, emissions controls were brand-new, and they strangled automobile performance. In fact, performance didn't really return until the mid-80s. The point is, the playing field was level: Every manufacturer faced the same hurdles. And eventually they overcame those hurdles. But when none of them decided to willingly make cars cleaner, the government created CAFE to do it for them. And the same thing could be true if Congress raises standards after what's expected to be an intense debate on the Senate floor next week: Engineers would eventually find the performance and fuel economy, just as they did 20 years ago. But, as we learned from the advent of airbags and ESP, these things don't happen without legislation.

Some say a severe gas tax would solve the problem. But that would probably prove about as popular as the national 55-mph speed limit—a law designed not to save lives but to save gas, a law we disregarded so routinely that it essentially created the radar detector industry. Forcing the consumer into more fuel-efficient vehicles with hyper-expensive gas is just that—forcing. Some families need larger vehicles, and some people actually need pickup trucks for work. Wouldn't it be better for the consumer to have a choice of vehicles that all got good fuel economy instead of punishing the consumer that needs a pickup truck? As expensive as it is, technology is the answer, not taxes. Here's hoping our government sets Detroit straight. —Ben Stewart

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
Popular Mechanics participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.